• Home
• News

Related Articles

• Feel the buzz as Bee Cool joins Eurorepar 

  Kettering-based air-con specialists Bee Cool has joined the Eurorepar Car Service (ERCS) network.
  
  The Bee Cool business, which has a network of licensed franchisees, was formed in 2004 by David Fry.

• Eurorepar launches Service Plan 

  Eurorepar Car Service (ERCS) has launched a new Service Plan payment option that allows customers to spread the cost of their next two services and MOTs using direct debit payments. The ERCS Service Plan also incentivises garages by offering £20 for every plan sold.
  
  According to Nick Taylor, Head of Network and Business Development for Eurorepar Car Service, with traditional payment and its Drive Now Pay Later scheme, the new Plan completes the company’s ‘three ways to pay’ strategy: “The launch of a Eurorepar Car Service Plan is another prime example of the customer-centric approach at the heart of the network. Customers of ERCS now have three ways to pay, and this flexibility will help drive footfall to our garages and improve customer retention. We encourage all centres to take full advantage of this new business tool and look forward to seeing the positive impact it has on our members’ profitability and customer satisfaction”.
  
  To support use of the system, ERCS’ Service Plan partner, EMaC, will be hosting online training to ensure that ERCS centres get the most out of the initiative.

• Part one: Succeeding with succession  

  According to the Institute for Family Business (IFB), two thirds – 4.7m in total of UK businesses are family owned. Crucially, the IFB believes that around 100,000 of these firms change hands each year.

• Don’t join the gold rush, sell shovels  

  Futurologists have predicted it for years, but now, it’s actually starting to happen. The impact of the sharing economy on the automotive industry has upended the status quo and companies are scrambling to gain first-mover advantage within a radically reconfigured marketplace.
  
  In the US, in March 2018 alone, an Ohio dealership launched a monthly subscription package that allows customers to switch between different brands of luxury cars, and GM announced a plan to allow their customers to rent their cars directly to each other. Meanwhile, ride-hailing is rapidly taking share from traditional car rental in Certify customers’ business travel expenses.
  In the UK, a Mobility as a Service (MaaS) App called Whim is in trial in the Midlands, offering unlimited public transport, hire cars and short taxi rides for a fixed monthly payment of £440. Meanwhile, personal contract purchase (PCP) deals – essentially car rental, with the option to pay off the rest of the car’s value after three years – have already become the preferred method of new vehicle purchase.
      
  The problem is that hundreds of companies in the automotive world have set their sights on the same goal: To be the go-to choice for consumers. That’s fine if you have billions to invest in marketing, but if you’re not at the level of Ford, Uber or Google, that fight is going to get ugly. Rental agencies, dealerships, and business leasing providers – all of whom are used to owning customer relationships in the pre-mobility world – are among those who are going to be out-gunned.
  
  The good news is that there are two clear ways for businesses to thrive in this new marketplace in a way that won’t be disrupted by technological advances. Both strategies involve selling to businesses rather than consumers, which means they can deliver sustainably higher margins without requiring a huge spend on marketing and customer acquisition.
  
  Strategy one: Sell a service to the dominant platforms
  The most obvious low-risk, high-reward model is to provide an indispensable service to enable the mobility being sold by others. This would involve contracting with whatever mobility platforms dominate, be it Ford, Uber or Waymo, Alphabet’s self-driving car unit. A business might decide to become the leading company that deliver services around.
   

• Setting the bar high 

  I have always attempted to present topics that vary in subject and technical challenge. This month’s subject delivers on all counts. A unique problem which challenges over vehicle knowledge, process and patience. In fact, it was so complex, this month’s topic almost ran in real time with publication.   
      
  A story from my many years of cycling in Europe will, I hope, illustrate my involvement with this diagnosis process. Several years ago, cycling from Paris to Pisa we had to divert from Grenoble to Marseille by train due to the Alps closed by heavy snow. Why should I have been caught out in this way? Well, it was May! Our onward journey took us to Ventimiglia. On this journey we watched in amusement as some people kept boarding and leaving the train playing cat and mouse with the ticket collectors. This very accurately describes my involvement in the diagnostic process with an AUDI S3, it also reminds me of an old expression; ‘Two many cooks in the kitchen’. It also reminded me of an old army adage; ‘Never share command!’
  
  Causes
  The vehicle presented many potential causes for what initially seemed a straightforward problem. It was booked in for a catalyst efficiency error, where a failed and partially restricted catalyst was discovered. This model variant utilises the brilliant EN888 engine which produces around 300BHP out of the box. This is a power plant I know very well due to my previous research and authoring in past technical topics. It is also fitted in my SEAT Cupra. Like the song says, “when the going gets tough, the tough get going,” and I was the go-to tough guy. Where’s Billy Ocean when you need him?
      
  Having removed the catalyst substrate, temporarily, It was noted that an intermittent misfire count was present on #1 cylinder. At this point I’m going to sound like a parrot; Misfire can and should be described more accurately as a combustion anomaly, the cause of which can be one of three possibilities; Fuelling, ignition, or mechanical malfunction. Somewhere in the mix of the repair process, responsibilities were split between three techs. This is something I do not agree with, but accept it can occur due to staff holidays which I think was the case here. Attention was first paid to the ignition, new spark plugs, and coils were exchanged. Result, no change. The intermittent combustion continued both on and off-load with a prevalence for #1 cylinder.
  
  Process
  I was not involved with the diagnostic process at this point, but a decision was taken to remove both sets of injectors for ASNU test bench assessment. I did witness the results found by Peter B, which convinced me the fault lay elsewhere. The intake swirl flaps were cleaned and tested for smooth movement transition. David M decided to replace #1 high pressure injector which also muddied the waters. With the fault still present and apparently getting worse, the vehicle would start promptly then descend into a severe combustion malfunction this lasted for several minutes, then apparently smoothing out. However, under dynamic road test a combustion count was predominant on #1 cylinder but did display similar events on multiple cylinders. A serial data logs clearly identified a cylinder misfire count synchronised with a drop in high fuel pressure. Nominal fuel pressure during warm up is around 60 bar, this was reduced to around 35 bar with the immediate effect of increasing the misfire count. So, the problem was fuel supply related. David M took the decision to replace the high-pressure pump, believing the fault was a high-pressure pump problem. This did not have any effect whatsoever.
  
  Advice
  At this point I was asked to review the diagnostic process and provide advice, this is where I recalled jumping on and off the train with no fare in my pocket. My reputation was very much pinned on my passion for the application of oscilloscope evaluation, and still is. However, serial data is essential for capturing information. It is quick and provides the actual sensor values at the PCM and any correction values. I was updated as to the previous tests carried out to the priming system by David G and the issues with high-pressure control during cold start and warm up strategies.  Low pressure was confirmed normal at 4.5 bar with no cavitation. At this point, I need to explain how the EN888 engine utilises the dual injection system. From cold and during the warm-up phase, it employs only the high-pressure injectors at approximately 60 bar pressure, with three injection events during crank start. This is reduced to two injection events per cycle until the low-pressure manifold injectors take over. More about camshaft timing later – it’s going to get quite complicated.
      
  Once started it continues with high pressure injectors for the entire warm-up period with two injection events in what “I” call homogenous and stratified delivery. Let me explain. Two thirds of the fuel required is on the intake cycle, homogenous mixture, with the final event on compression stroke, stratified delivery. It then switches over to manifold injection at low-pressure, approximately 5 bar for the entire low to mid-range load strategies. The high-pressure system is only used for high load and engine RPM strategies. The reason for this is quite revealing! Direct injection strategies can produce higher particulates and NOx emission levels than diesel during lean fuelling and high load strategies. Now, I’ve been a bit in the back-seat so far, what will all the sheer number of cooks in the car, looking to find the kitchen. Part two is where I take a more direct involvement in assessing the previous tests using the Pico scope and cross-referencing serial values and pcm correction. I promise some remarkably interesting results. Join us next issue for the continuation. In the meantime consider how you think the PCM should respond to sensor input, fuel trim, injector period and high rail pressure.
  
  
  

---

Search

---

---

---